Mt. Baldy, May 1, 2010

[Mike Bernstein]

I see no evidence that snowmaking has ever been attempted on chair 4. This was the first year with the new reservoir and equipment; thus the first time Robin's and Skyline have been covered adequately on manmade. A couple of the locals commented that skiing on those runs was pretty decent before the first big dump 3rd week of January, first time I've ever heard that kind of comment.

Good point on the ticket line. That's another thing like the webpage reporting that's a relatively cheap fix addressing a prominent issue in Baldy's negative reputation. They did add one more ticket line this year on busy days.

Mike Bernstein has not been out here long enough. In about 1/3 of the past 35 seasons NOTHING has been skiable under chair 1 at ANY time during the season. If Baldy had a lot of water and could handle the chair 4 intermediate runs in addition to what they are doing now and still had more capacity, only then would I consider trying to do anything with Sugarpine. And frankly, when you see the snowmaking triage that goes on at Mountain High, I'd be more inclined to keep using any extra snowmaking capacity in dry years on the aforementioned runs to keep surfaces nice.

Interesting to hear about the snowmaking observations. That's helpful perspective.

The Ch 1 and ticket window issues are inter-related somewhat. Essentially, their entire introduction to their clients has to be overhauled. It's tough to find useful information on the place. It's tough to get there. Tough to get a ticket once you're there. Tough to get up to where the skiing is once you've bought the ticket. By the time most people actually start skiing, they've likely dealt with nothing but unpleasantness and incompetence. My brother has lived hear almost 20 years and, based on his 2 experiences at Baldy, was a staunch opponent of spending his skiing time and $ there. I was able to turn him around this Spring with a well-timed and executed day there, but I would imagine that he's no the only one who feels (felt) this way.

As for snowmaking, even the new 6 million (is it 6? I forget) surely isn't enough to provide coverage on the main Ch 3 runs as well as the Ch 4 runs. There would need to be additional solutions for that. I think the point about having a snowmaking trail of Ch 4 is well taken, though I'm not sure of the extent to which the greater elevation vs. Sugarpine compensates for the inferior aspect. It's always good to have a snowmaking option on each of your core trail pods. That said, I would still argue that having a more reliable and more consistent ability for intermediates and others to ski down to the base should be a higher priority. While they may not open Ch 1 at all for 1/3 of the seasons, how much of that is due to a complete lack of cold air vs. just a lack of precip/timing?

 

[Tony Crocker]

Not opening chair 1 (and chair 4 also) at all is mostly due to drought. But Sugarpine is steeper than the chair 4 runs and much warmer on sunny days, so the snow deteriorates faster. And there are 3 mainstream intermediate runs on chair 4 that should be attractive to broadening their base of skiers. I fully agree that upgrading/streamlining the ticket/chair 1 process should be the next priority.

Part of the chair 1 problem is that those of us on FTO usually see it on powder days, when Thunder can be delayed and the first people up the hill are taking runs on chair 1, adding to its congestion. In the old days it was common for them to set up 2 lines at chair 1, one for the people just getting on the hill and the other for people skiing down chair 1, merging them behind the bullwheel. I saw this once in 2005. We nutcases were happy to see this arrangement, though I'm sure the people arriving at 9AM weren't.

 

[Mike Bernstein]

Not opening chair 1 (and chair 4 also) at all is mostly due to drought. But Sugarpine is steeper than the chair 4 runs and much warmer on sunny days, so the snow deteriorates faster. And there are 3 mainstream intermediate runs on chair 4 that should be attractive to broadening their base of skiers. I fully agree that upgrading/streamlining the ticket/chair 1 process should be the next priority.

Fully agree on the importance of opening up intermediate terrain. Despite the steepness of Sugarpine (some of which could be mitigated with selective grading), I would think you'd agree that at some point it's important to have terrain for most abilities top to bottom. Perhaps it's not the next priority for snowmaking expansion there (it would be for me), but it has to be high on the list. Just the psychological impact alone of seeing a well-covered run below you when you're riding the lift is important (i.e. this goes to the whole introduction Baldy makes to its customers). The skiing impact would be even greater from a statistical standpoint ("top to bottom coverage for over 2000' in SoCal") and in terms of extending the season in good years off of Bentley's etc.. This is probably (read: almost certainly) a semantics argument. They are both important to Baldy's future given inconsistent SoCal snows.

Part of the chair 1 problem is that those of us on FTO usually see it on powder days, when Thunder can be delayed and the first people up the hill are taking runs on chair 1, adding to its congestion. In the old days it was common for them to set up 2 lines at chair 1, one for the people just getting on the hill and the other for people skiing down chair 1, merging them behind the bullwheel. I saw this once in 2005. We nutcases were happy to see this arrangement, though I'm sure the people arriving at 9AM weren't.

Would you think that a fixed grip triple where you don't have to skip every third chair is the best they can hope for? That's a $1.0-1.5MM expenditure vs. a HSQ at $4-5MM. My guess is that's the best they can do, although by effectively doubling the uphill capacity of that lift, it's a pretty big step for them regardless.

 

[Tony Crocker]

Chair 1 is likely to be a fixed quad eventually. I think it's very important that it be engineered to run without skipping chairs and have good capacity for downloading.

When you compare Mt. High and Big Bear snowmaking, you can see the huge difference between limited capacity and nearly unlimited with a lake as water source. Mt. High, even after the entire mountain is covered by the first big dump, can't maintain cover much less keep the surfaces nice over all its terrain with just snowmaking if it's dry with warm days for an extended period. Baldy's snowmaking will be similarly limited. It's more important to keep their 6 intermediate runs up top covered and topped off with new snow that to fool around with Sugarpine, which will inevitably become a manmade ice-skating rink and complete $#!tshow at the end of the day with everybody trying to get down it at once. Send the intermediates down an improved chair 1 and they will be much happier IMHO.

There are places where intermediates are perfectly content using a lower lift as access only. June Mt. and the Gunbarrel base of Heavenly come to mind. Not to mention a long list of places in Europe. I understand the psychological point, but the reality of SoCal weather, Baldy's topography and snowmaking capacity override that IMHO.

 

[socal]

There are places where intermediates are perfectly content using a lower lift as access only. June Mt. and the Gunbarrel base of Heavenly come to mind. Not to mention a long list of places in Europe. I understand the psychological point, but the reality of SoCal weather, Baldy's topography and snowmaking capacity override that IMHO.

My beginner/intermediate friends took the long winding way down to the base of Gunbarrel the first day at Heavenly. They hated it and took the lift down the second day. I agree, no reason to mess with the chair 1 terrain/snowmaking. It's socal, it is what it is and elevation matters.

 

[reefuss12]

What bothers me most about all this expansion talk is baldy will lose its Baldiness. Which is a lot of customers complaining and not coming back. Thats the Baldy I liked. This last winter I saw the parking lot filled with bmws,audi s4s and new range rovers and happy people. Whats happening. Leave chair 1 the way it is and its pow for the strongest and the fittest at baldy the way its always been.

 

[egieszl]

Why can't they load every chair on Chair 1? Obviously, it was originally designed to. Could it be that this lift is beyond its serviceable life?

Baldy would really benefit from replacing Chair 1 with a Gondola. That would be a marketable year-round attraction and more so than the current chair rides. It would improve the capacity. Make it easier for beginners and intermediates to access their terrain. Loading and unloading would be much easier since the lift is detachable. Downloading would be more enjoyable. It would be safer. Also, on days when the weather isn't favorable on the lower mountain (rain) it would make accessing the upper mountain more comfortable. They would also see increased interest from people wanting to hold special events at their on-mountain lodge. Weddings, groups and other functions would find the location more appealing if they had a gondola for access.

Replacing chair 1 with a fixed grip lift would not improve the situation. The only benefit would be the age of the lift and maybe an increase in capacity, but it wouldn't be a step forward for the area. Replacing Chairs 2, 3 and 4 with newer fixed grip lifts would be fine, but when it comes to Chair 1 they need to do something that improves the situation.

 

[egieszl]

I want to also add something else to this thread. I've lived 40 minutes from Mt. Baldy for the past 5 years and I haven't gone once. The reason why is simple. Their snow reports are all LIES and their web site sucks. I never know when is a good time to go to Baldy, so I end up going to Mountain High and Snow Valley instead despite the longer drive. Both those ski areas provide consistent snow reports, so I can get a pretty good idea of what the conditions will be like.

You guys provide a great service with your trip reports, but I read them and always think wow I would've gone had I known the conditions were like that, but reading them a few days after you've gone doesn't help since I start to wonder if the conditions are still good or not. Mt. Baldy's snow reports ALONE prevent me from patronizing the mountain.

 

[SoCal Rider]

I want to also add something else to this thread. I've lived 40 minutes from Mt. Baldy for the past 5 years and I haven't gone once. The reason why is simple. Their snow reports are all LIES and their web site sucks. I never know when is a good time to go to Baldy, so I end up going to Mountain High and Snow Valley instead despite the longer drive. Both those ski areas provide consistent snow reports, so I can get a pretty good idea of what the conditions will be like.

You guys provide a great service with your trip reports, but I read them and always think wow I would've gone had I known the conditions were like that, but reading them a few days after you've gone doesn't help since I start to wonder if the conditions are still good or not. Mt. Baldy's snow reports ALONE prevent me from patronizing the mountain.

I can't imagine Admin skipping Alta every time for Park City simply because he didn't trust the snow report or Web site wasn't up to snuff. All lies? If you say so, having never gone. What do you need from the Web site that is preventing you from patronizing? Yes, it would be nice if they listed every run on the mountain and whether it was open, closed, groomed or ungroomed. One of those fancy interactive maps would be neat ala Mountain High. But I don't see it as such a hurdle. Besides, can you really trust a John McColly snow report, when it's almost always "amazing midwinter packed powder"? The yearly comparison to Colorado?

 

[SoCal Rider]

What bothers me most about all this expansion talk is baldy will lose its Baldiness. Which is a lot of customers complaining and not coming back. Thats the Baldy I liked. This last winter I saw the parking lot filled with bmws,audi s4s and new range rovers and happy people. Whats happening. Leave chair 1 the way it is and its pow for the strongest and the fittest at baldy the way its always been.

There's nothing inherently wrong with progress and change. How old are those lifts? I say someone give Bernstein $25 million and let him go crazy.

 

[Mike Bernstein]

Why can't they load every chair on Chair 1? Obviously, it was originally designed to. Could it be that this lift is beyond its serviceable life?

Baldy would really benefit from replacing Chair 1 with a Gondola. That would be a marketable year-round attraction and more so than the current chair rides. It would improve the capacity. Make it easier for beginners and intermediates to access their terrain. Loading and unloading would be much easier since the lift is detachable. Downloading would be more enjoyable. It would be safer. Also, on days when the weather isn't favorable on the lower mountain (rain) it would make accessing the upper mountain more comfortable. They would also see increased interest from people wanting to hold special events at their on-mountain lodge. Weddings, groups and other functions would find the location more appealing if they had a gondola for access.

Replacing chair 1 with a fixed grip lift would not improve the situation. The only benefit would be the age of the lift and maybe an increase in capacity, but it wouldn't be a step forward for the area. Replacing Chairs 2, 3 and 4 with newer fixed grip lifts would be fine, but when it comes to Chair 1 they need to do something that improves the situation.

While I'm all for progress, I don't think it's realistic to discuss a gondola at Baldy. Sure it would help things in terms of their non-skiing and off-season business, but a fixed grip lift costs $1.0-1.5MM vs a gondola at $8MM or so. That's several times more money than Baldy generates in a year, so I don't really think it's worth discussing even if it were necessary, which it's not.

 

[Mike Bernstein]

I want to also add something else to this thread. I've lived 40 minutes from Mt. Baldy for the past 5 years and I haven't gone once. The reason why is simple. Their snow reports are all LIES and their web site sucks. I never know when is a good time to go to Baldy, so I end up going to Mountain High and Snow Valley instead despite the longer drive. Both those ski areas provide consistent snow reports, so I can get a pretty good idea of what the conditions will be like.

You guys provide a great service with your trip reports, but I read them and always think wow I would've gone had I known the conditions were like that, but reading them a few days after you've gone doesn't help since I start to wonder if the conditions are still good or not. Mt. Baldy's snow reports ALONE prevent me from patronizing the mountain.

I think that's pretty weak sauce. This was my first winter in SoCal and of the 4 days I skied at Baldy, I caught three fantastic powder days and a perfect corn day. I didn't sit on my ass waiting for the latest from the Baldy website. Rather, I tracked the weather closely on places like the Mammoth Forums and made my own decisions based on the combination of observed weather, direction of the flow (Baldy does best with a flow from the S or SW b/c it's on the front side of the San Gabriels), and forecast winds. Being SoCal, you have to watch the weather more closely here than almost any other region in North America. The swings in precip type, temperature and winds, along with the high sun angle, mandate that you stay on your toes. If you're looking for reliable conditions where you don't have to think that hard, then settle for Mtn High or Big Bear. If you're looking for the best big-mountain skiing this side of Mammoth, then pay attention, plan in advance and get up early for Baldy. It's a pretty simple formula.

 

[Mike Bernstein]

What bothers me most about all this expansion talk is baldy will lose its Baldiness. Which is a lot of customers complaining and not coming back. Thats the Baldy I liked. This last winter I saw the parking lot filled with bmws,audi s4s and new range rovers and happy people. Whats happening. Leave chair 1 the way it is and its pow for the strongest and the fittest at baldy the way its always been.

There's nothing inherently wrong with progress and change. How old are those lifts? I say someone give Bernstein $25 million and let him go crazy.

Sounds like a plan!

$6MM - Snowmaking upgrades including doubled reservoir capacity and installation of snowmaking along Turket Shoot, Roller Coaster and Sugarpine
$5MM - HSQ to replace Ch 1
$2MM - Enhanced snow removal capability on access road
$1MM - Refurb Ch 3 and Ch 4 to ensure long life; move base of Ch 3 to bottom of The Tube
$1MM - Worker training, new website, expanded ticket booth and permanent snack shack at base of the mtn to replace double-wide
$10MM - Hookers, blow and bacon

$25MM

 

[Tony Crocker]

I agree 100% with Mike's first 2 posts above. But if I had $25M I would go after those backside permits immediately, as there would still be enough $ to upgrade chairs 1 and 3 and the ticket window area.

Nonetheless egeiszl's comments reinforce my view that cleaning up the ski reporting is the most cost effective move Mt. Baldy could make to improve its reputation.

Besides, can you really trust a John McColly snow report, when it's almost always "amazing midwinter packed powder"?

No, but you can ignore the fluffy verbiage and use the open/closed trail report to get closer to reality. If Baldy has a 4-foot base with all chairs running but Emile's is listed closed, you know that Thunder is icy for example. Instead of the vague "runs to the parking lot open," you would see an enumerated trail list that will track the gradual loss of snow cover under chair 1 week by week.

I disagree with moving Thunder's base to the bottom of Tube. I like having a balance of direct skiing and some requiring a little grunt work (per the Alta/Snowbird debates, I think Snowbird has a near ideal such balance). Baldy has a good mix in this regard now IMHO, and it will be more important to have those out-of-the-way stashes if lift capacity is increased.

What bothers me most about all this expansion talk is baldy will lose its Baldiness....

Be careful what you wish for. Incompetence can lead to a Waterman (under the Stubblefields) situation or worse. None of us will be happy if Mt. Baldy goes bankrupt and the environmentalists try to shut it down completely.

 

[Admin]

I agree 100% with Mike's fist 2 posts above. But if I had $25M I would go after those backside permits immediately, as there would still be enough $ to upgrade chairs 1 and 3 and the ticket window area.

But would there be enough left over for the $10MM to pay for hookers, blow and bacon?

 

[Tony Crocker]

But would there be enough left over for the $10MM to pay for hookers, blow and bacon?

Maybe not 10M, but I'm not advocating a HSQ, moving Thunder's base or putting snowmaking on Sugarpine. :lol: Remember, as at Mt. High the limiting factor for snowmaking will ultimately be water supply and Mt. Baldy might already be at its snowmaking max capacity with the new reservoir.

 

[Admin]

Why not feed it with wells?

 

[SoCal Rider]

No, but you can ignore the fluffy verbiage and use the open/closed trail report to get closer to reality. If Baldy has a 4-foot base with all chairs running but Emile's is listed closed, you know that Thunder is icy for example. Instead of the vague "runs to the parking lot open," you would see an enumerated trail list that will track the gradual loss of snow cover under chair 1 week by week.

Nobody on this forum is a bigger weenie than me when it comes to demanding certain conditions before heading up. If there's no chance of "forgiving" surface, I don't go. And yet, I have still transitioned to Baldy from Mountain High during the past three seasons. And in that time, I have seen no reason to trust High's definition of "packed powder" over Baldy's, for one. In fact, Tony mentions "icy." I'm pretty sure I've seen that word used in a Baldy report once or twice; you'll never see it on High's site. Like Mike said, simply following weather changes allows you to offset/sniff out the inherent BS in a snow report.

Having just defended Baldy, yes, the report leaves plenty to be desired. I'd prefer blogger-type detail with maybe "choice run or two" of the day. I'm sure ski hills are afraid that a brutally honest report will discourage visitors, but there has to be some middle ground there for Baldy to attain.

 

[Mike Bernstein]

But would there be enough left over for the $10MM to pay for hookers, blow and bacon?

Maybe not 10M, but I'm not advocating a HSQ, moving Thunder's base or putting snowmaking on Sugarpine. :lol: Remember, as at Mt. High the limiting factor for snowmaking will ultimately be water supply and Mt. Baldy might already be at its snowmaking max capacity with the new reservoir.

Obviously I was joking around with much of that list. I agree with Tony that getting started on the Stockton Flats expansion is priority #1 in a fantasy world in which you have $25MM to put to work. Between permitting, legal battles, improving Lytle Creek road, building some sort of base area ticketing/food/bathroom shack and a bottom to top lift (there I could see a HSQ), you're looking at $15-20MM alone. I'd spend the remaining $5-10MM replacing Ch 1 with a fixed grip lift, continuing upgrades to snowmaking, and revising customer service (from the website through to the base area look-and-feel). Despite Tony's protestations, there is no evidence I've seen or heard to indicate that Baldy has maximized its snowmaking capacity. It may well be true - they are in a tough spot in that regard due to topography - but we have zero evidence of same. At a minimum, I would think the original snowmaking pond over near the top of Bentley's could be expanded. I think we can agree to disagree w/r/t the importance and feasibility of implementing snowmaking on Sugarpine. In a world in which Stockton Flats is out of the question, I think that becomes a higher priority than you do. As for moving Ch 3 base, you know quite well there would still be a large amount of hike-to terrain off of Ch 1, 3 and 4. It's not like I'm saying put the base of the lift at the bottom of South Bowl or points further West. What I would NOT do is take any steps to increase capacity on Ch 3. It's a pretty good mix as it is between lift capacity and available terrain.

 

[egieszl]

I’m reading the same thing I see on a lot of ski area forums. Let’s clear something up. A new lift isn’t a “cost”, it's an “investment”. I’m also pretty sure that most ski areas finance their new lift projects.

In my opinion a gondola would be a smart investment for the long-term success of Mt. Baldy since I believe it has the potential to generate a much larger return. I listed numerous reasons why and that increase in business should offset the higher price tag.

A gondola would be a huge marketing statement. I believe this investment would help the ski area eventually make additional investments in snowmaking, lift and facility upgrades and possibly justify expansion.

A used gondola, would be a fine alternative. It may cost more to operate than a new lift, but the initial investment would be less.

I stand by what I said on the snow reports. I don’t care what any resort says for surface conditions. What I want to see is daily photos, a web cam that doesn’t get moved (Did anyone notice for last weekend they repositioned it so the lower portion of Chair 3 wasn't visible anymore), a list of status for every single run, including when it was last groomed and any snowmaking activity. I’d also like to see actual base depths reported from several locations that never move. I don’t want to see ranges other than for reports on man-made snow supplementing natural snow.

When they start to do this then I’ll be able to easily anticipate what conditions will be like.

Some of you can continue to defend the mountain and call me out, but you’re missing the point. Baldy is loosing my business to other ski areas because of poor communication practices. I don’t give a s**t that it’s the best big mountain this side of Mammoth. I ski 30+ days every year at the ski area with the largest vertical drop in the US, so I get my fill of big mountain skiing. I ski locally to fill in the gaps between those days and just to get out of the house. Baldy might be better, but Mountain High and Snow Valley are adequate. If Baldy would simply shape up their snow reports then I’d feel more comfortable with patronizing their mountain instead.